414 Responses

I always find the word respect an interesting one in these discussions. There's a spectrum of meaning attached to the word respect. It can be used to denote due regard for the feelings/rights/traditions of others, in which case I fully condone it's use. It gets tricky when it is confused with one of it's other meanings though - in the sense that it can be used to denote admiration for someone/something.

As someone who doesn't believe religious idea's should be exempt from critical appraisal, I find it troubling when used in that second context - in that sense, religious belief being something I do not have any respect for. Disagree with what you say, yet willing to fight for your right to be able to say it sort of thing. Anyway, I shall watch with interest.

I always find the word respect an interesting one in these discussions. There’s a spectrum of meaning attached to the word respect. It can be used to denote due regard for the feelings/rights/traditions of others, in which case I fully condone it’s use. It gets tricky when it is confused with one of it’s other meanings though – in the sense that it can be used to denote admiration for someone/something.

There is no doubt this country has developed over the last 200 years under the direct influence of the christian faith. Practically any connection with other world religions was nigh impossible. There is no doubt this so called “god given” and “god’s own” country is now being watered down by other religions and god rejecting heathens – commonly they call us atheists.

Rather than progressively pander to all and sundry, the rational approach is to assert that public NZ should be a fully secular country where individuals are entitled to partake in their own weird practices but ensure the rest of the country’s day to day operations (from employment and education upwards) go ahead prayer free.

The thing which tends to bug me about discussions in which religion is an element, is that people's beliefs seem somehow to have more weight, more significance, than (mere) facts. It's as though more energy is behind things that (by definition) you don't know, than behind things that just are. And the result seems to be a tendency for theological issues to be discussed as though they are more important than perceived reality, which to me is back to front. I have no problem with people having beliefs, but I do have a problem when these are treated as facts, or as more important than facts.

I have been pondering something I heard Lloyd Geering say at a secular conference some time ago. He gave a wide interpretation to religion, way beyond the official nomenclature of denominations. More of a "Tao", a way of life.

It's an idea I find comforting, as it prescribes some protection for atheists and other secularists to enjoy the protections of human faith without the requisite spaghetti monster alibi.

I’ve been reading Sir Keith Sinclair’s A Destiny Apart: New Zealand’s Search for National Identity, which makes some fascinating observations about the practice of war remembrance that developed here after World War 1. A conventionally religious flavour was gradually squeezed out in favour of the Dawn Service, which, says Sinclair, “might, indeed, have been some pagan ceremony.”

The concrete symbols of remembrance that dot the country even now, he notes, “are neither churches nor chapels; the cross is rarely employed. Rather, they look back to the Greek cenotaph, the empty tomb or to the column. The Auckland War Memorial, like the National Museum in Wellington, was inspired by Greek Temples. Each is placed on a hill, like the Acropolis. The obelisk looks back to ancient Egypt. Some monuments are arches, like the triumphant arches often erected in nineteenth-century New Zealand to welcome distinguished guests. These too, derive from the pre-Christian world. In many countries, these war memorials played a major role in strengthening nationalism. The nation was imagined as a community in which everyone shared, and to which everyone owed an equal duty. For men, that duty, included, if necessary, the supreme self-sacrifice.”

There are few things more bound to our sense of national identity than Anzac Day, and yet it is really not a Christian occasion.

I have always felt that by the time someone has reached their late teens (I'm approaching that now) they've established a world view that either does (most people) or does not (a minority) allow them to function as part of society.

Dealing with those who have not established a world view that works for them it takes a skilled professional to help them find a path, it's not a job for amateurs.

For me that leads very simply to the concept that actively trying to disrupt someones belief system is not a nice thing to do to someone. That's where I get grumpy with organised religion as an entity. I have no problem with anyone believing anything if it makes them happy and does no harm to others. But if they try and convert another person ... then I don't think that's a nice thing.

I know my parents loved the religious freedom they had when they immigrated, in their case the freedom to have no religion. And while I have no religion, I like that in my suburb (Mt Roskill) there is just about every religious group you can think of, and they all seem to get along and cook for each other. As an aside why do we only have a cross on Mt Roskill, why aren't there 27 other symbols up there, or none?

To me that's an important part of being a New Zealander (whatever that is), the idea that it's OK if your neighbour thinks something different from you so long as your kids can still play together without causing too much damage to the vege garden.

If that diversity and tolerance plays out in the media then that has to be a good thing, doesn't it?

Dr Bill Cooke of the NZ Humanist Society would also disagree. Most of NZ's European immigration in the 1880's was in the age of Darwin. Most of the godbotherers had already gone to the US. Hell, European immigration wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for Cook's scientific funding to study the Transit of Venus.

NZ had its missionaries, but it was largely founded by whalers and sailors, followed by others who just wanted the space and freedom to do their own thing without all the baggage encumbering Europe at the time - be it religious, historical, caste or racial.

To me that's an important part of being a New Zealander (whatever that is), the idea that it's OK if your neighbour thinks something different from you so long as your kids can still play together without causing too much damage to the vege garden.

True dat. In NZ, it ain't no thing for a Jew and an Arab to be friends.

I have no problem with attempts at conversion, within proper bounds. A healthy society will always have people trying to convince others of new (or old) ideas and so it should. It's the proper bounds that mean that the kids can still play.

As for Ross' idea of getting rid of Chrimas and Easter, I don't think so. I've lived in Singapore twice in my life and while there is a ot of things about their society I wouldn't emulate I think their practise on religious holidays is pretty spot on. Cover off every major group (in their case Christian, Muslim, Hindu and "Chinese"/Buddhist) and then have a smattering of shared national holidays. In NZ's case, that means more or less what we have and I don't think anyone is really suffering because of it.

I'm an atheist - hardcore and dogmatic. But I don't care about Easter or Christmas - we have widespread, largely secular traditions built around both holidays (eggs and presents) and they're not doing anyone any harm.

There has been something of a reaction in NZ history against Sinclair’s secular interpretation. Some contemporary scholars believe he underestimates the importance of religion in early NZ; I think it is Dunedin scholar John Stenhouse who leads the charge in this respect.

There has been something of a reaction in NZ history against Sinclair's secular interpretation. Some contemporary scholars believe he underestimates the importance of religion in early NZ

Like much else, and with no disrespect to Sinclair, I think historiography is in large part about people drawing bold lines, followed by others to shade in the nuances, ambiguities and down right contradictions that make human beings so delightful. :)

I'm really stoked that you're covering this, Russell. I remembering hearing years ago that Radio Rhema was the biggest radio network in NZ - I'm sure that's not the case now - but it was a surprise to those at the conference at the time.

How can I put this politely? I'm glad that so many commenters feel such conviction about the place of religion in their lives. I'm sure that you, Russell, are more interested in hearing than being heard. Gutted I can't be there tomorrow night - will catch the podcast.

Ummm... Late last year I was interviewed on Breakfast about marriage equality, mostly on the strength of an op-ed I wrote for the Dom Post about it. I was arguing for full formal equality for all New Zealanders. Petra Bagust asked me if it was a matter of morality vs. equality. She didn't quite know how to respond when I replied, "Whose morality?"

I suspect that she is so entrenched in Christianity that she can't quite perceive any other way of doing morality.

Yes, I'm inclined to reserve "Godbotherers" for people who bother me about their god. I don't even especially mind the door knocking Godbotherers, unless it's before 9am on a Saturday or Sunday, but it's the ones who won't just go away when you say politely, "No, thank you." that annoy me. Or the ones who thrust pamphlets at my children. Or the ones who say they will pray for me....